• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What makes you pick a particular Music format?

+48V said:
We are discussing music formats here right?
Click to expand...
You're welcome to debate your point with Sony's perspective as linked to in post #127:

What is High-Resolution Audio?
High-Resolution Audio refers to a collection of digital processes and formats that allow the encoding and playback of music using higher sampling rates than the standards used in CDs.
 
E-Stat said:
You're welcome to debate your point with Sony's perspective as linked to in post #127:

What is High-Resolution Audio?
High-Resolution Audio refers to a collection of digital processes and formats that allow the encoding and playback of music using higher sampling rates than the standards used in CDs.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to re-read the last two lines in post #138
 
+48V said:
You're welcome to re-read the last two lines in post #138
Click to expand...
I did. And?

Naturally, the RIAA's focus is limited to music while Sony's is not. After all they were one of the developers of both the CD and SACD formats.

Try again.
 
E-Stat said:
I did. And?

Naturally, the RIAA's focus is limited to music while Sony's is not. After all they were one of the developers of both the CD and SACD formats.

Try again.
Click to expand...
We were discussing logos for content not devices. While both logos/standards are used to compliment one another, the Hi-Res Music badge refers to master recordings & retail files. It has it's own distinct place on content; just as Hi-Res Audio has it's proper place on hardware. If you feel this is an unjustified or improper nitpick, then maybe you should get in touch with JAS and alert them that the music industry is treading on "their" turf.

Simply making a relevant point about the proper use of the logos here mate.
 
+48V said:
We were discussing logos for content not devices.
Click to expand...
You seem to be having a conversation by yourself regarding the logos.

Someone suggested earlier that Redbook quality was "high resolution". Such is not supported by fact - by either the music or the hardware industry.
 
Last edited:
Radio

My first audio format was FM/AM radio, because that's all I had. It was an old General Electric portable radio with a full range speaker that I still have today. Really pulls in the stations.

Cassette

Then came cassettes, which I never really liked and didn't try to hard at. Maybe I should have. I don't remember what happened to them and I don't really care. They seemed very disposable, like they were made with the knowledge that they'd be thrown away, and I always hated that even from a young age.

Compact Disc

Next was CD which was a big deal at the time, because I could listen to my favorite artists, and they sounded Soooooo good, and when I was younger you had to work for this format. This is the easiest way to get high quality music in my opinion and I always (even before other things) the act of opening up the album and carefully pulling out the disc and putting it in the player, then looking through the artwork as I listen. I still really like searching for albums for hidden gems at least once a week. The reliability physicality, quality, and permanence of this format is very attractive. I'd recommend this to any one just starting out as its cheap, rewarding and effective.

MP3+Friends

Then I got an MP3 player shortly after my family got their first desktop. I got lucky with a really nice one, but it was only 4 gigs so I had to compress all but my favorite songs. Still it was really convenient, and I could transfer my CD's over to it and listen to them anywhere. Awesome unit, but the battery died on me years ago and its integrated. This was what I listened to in bed, or on a trip. I've still got it, but the stupid battery costs more then I paid for it new, which was a lot and I can't justify fixing it + have no reason to replace it. These are great, because you don't have to buy the whole album for that one good song. I can't compare it anymore, but despite compression it would take a fairly high end system to match the experience of that unit that I was able to buy (with everything I had) at the age of 12. I wish I had the brand of those headphones. Live recordings were breathtaking, and for a few years this was "THE BEST" quality in music reproduction I had just because my headphones were that good.

Vinyl Records

Then came vinyl. I didn't have the money or the experience to really make it rival my CD's but people were just giving away music everywhere, and I love saving these wonderful recordings from dusky garages and old barns. I first got a small collection going that I couldn't pass up, and then got a junk unit to play it. This is hands down the "coolest" format and the effort you have to put into it instills and extra degree of pride in your music, gear, and collection in my opinion. I still haven't caught it up to my CD's and don't know that I ever will but I love my vinyl just as much. Everything about it is kind of ridiculous if you think about it too hard, but I just have an emotional draw to mechanical devices and think the players are one of the coolest things in this whole shebang next to the music itself.

Modern Convenience

Now, I've got everything on my phone. I pretty much have my entire collection on there, plus spotify. I really like streaming, and its played just as often as I listen to the radio still. I enjoy the organization computers allow, and how easy it is to mix and match custom playlists. Its great that my collection and more is accessible anywhere there is internet, and that's used for friends, and casual listening.

Next, I'm probably going to get a DAC, and keep the miles off my hard copies and the aging players I use for them with my hard drive storage. They will still get played though. I feel like a nut saying it, but the computer or a phone just isn't the same.



I picked my formats based first on accessibility, then quality, then cool factor, then convenience. They all have their strengths to this day, and are all, aside from cassets, still in use according to how much time I feel like putting into them. I always thought Audio-DVD's were the format to rule them all, but they never really took off for some reason. They were always so expensive. I suppose greed did that format in.
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP's question, it depends upon mood. Since I have FM, Full res streaming, records, cds and locally stored hi-res digital content, it's a mood related thing.
 
The last thing we need is some BS logo. How about just labelling a recording for what it truly is? Not everyone is an idiot. I'll decide for myself whether the resolution is considered high enough for my needs. Honest source labelling is what allows me to properly choose a particular format. Details of how something was recorded, what processing occurred, and how (and on what) it was transferred seems to be deliberately missing in the commercial market.
 
Last edited:
IF, perhaps the industry would properly use the logos for actual provenance (the actual recording method and chain of reproduction such as the SPARS code was MEANT was intended to do for RBCD), there wouldn't be a problem.

for the people who DO care, the recording chain matters as it affects the final listening experience. if it doesn't matter to you, then drop out of the discussion.

even if the original recording is done with redbook product in mind, the final mode can deliver better than rbcd sound just by allowing the inherent sound of the studio quality electronics. that is why digital recordings such as brothers in arms and famous blue raincoat sound better on vinyl,

cassettes lent themselves to be easily put in your pocket and to a lesser degree, so does CD. perhaps that is a subliminal lowering of perceived quality or value. pretty good sound can be had from either but less than LP and other hi-rez formats. ultimately we all have our reasons for choosing a format and for us it is valid and the best can be made of ANY decision.
 
I pick online streaming on my peachtree since I don't own any mp3 CDs or vinyls. It's my only source of music. Pandora and YouTube.
It sounds fine (most of it),and I probably couldn't tell anyways.
 
hifitommy said:
IF, perhaps the industry would properly use the logos for actual provenance (the actual recording method and chain of reproduction such as the SPARS code was MEANT was intended to do for RBCD), there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...
Heartily agree. Provenance of the master is key. I made mentioned earlier of the hoodwankery that's prevalent in Hi-Res stores. Simply putting a file in a bigger 'bit bucket' does not qualify as Hi-Res.

4359076.jpg
 
E-Stat said:
Agreed. It makes zero sense from the standpoint of downloading the media. I think it might have life for a while for "serious streamers" who subscribe to services like TIDAL.
Click to expand...
The Primary relevance of MQA is for music Streaming! If you already have a large HiRez music library and a good DAC, no need to hurry and buy a MQA compatible DAC. But to those with entry level DAC or who are streaming Bluetooth, to their stereo, the Tidal HiFi subscription, which offer 3-400 MQA albums, and growing slowly all the time, is a noticeable improvement. The Meridian Explorer, is a $300 entry level option, and I opted for the Bluesound Node for $400, the Node 2 has more connection options and is $500. If you steam with a Sonos connect, it is a noticable improvement for the MQA tracts, particularly with older Analogue re-mastered music. All of the CD quality, and FLAC files sound the same. I upgraded from the Sonos to the Node, for a $100 so it is well worth it. Most reviews from people who have heard and have tried a MQA compatible DAC and are streaming are very positive. There are still many who have not experienced it who are nay sayers, and that is fine. It is a software adaptation for the DAC companies, if MQA fails to grab enough market share, or something comes along that is better, I am sure the companies will adapt. I had a very limited BlueRay library, and my old CD, Vinyl collection had been long ago ripped to a Mac, and sounded marginal up until I got a Sonos with a Deezer script. I jumped to Tidal HiFi with MQA, and am listening to new music and all the old MQA tracts again. It seems like a logical progression for anyone streaming. Tidal like Deezer, allow you to download your music list, for offline listening, to Auto,Boat, Bluetooth devices. Hope this has been helpful.
 
Yes read those reviews, MQA files from my experience sound slightly better than the standard CD streaming version, sampled at reputable shop and upgraded to the Bluesound Node from my Sonos Connect. For a extra $5 bucks a month, and a $100 upgrade, I am listening to streaming music again, and finding new favorites. Isn't that what music listening is all about.
botrytis said:
I will disagree. MQA is for making Meridian money at the beginning middle and end, while we gain nothing at all. You need to have an MQA complaint software AND DAC to get any benefit and the MQA encoded files, say MQA encoded 192/24 PCM files are larger than 192/24 bit encoded FLAC files. The big thing about MQA is that it will allow a 'watermark' on a file and who know where that will go. FLAC is fine for streaming. What does MQA give you aver that? Nothing except a closed system.
Click to expand...
I am not concerned about a watermark, it cost me $5 a month to upgrade to Tidal HiFi. and now i can listen to 24/196 files, and there is a increased soundstage. You guys that have huge HiRez libraries and great DAC's should not be threatened, I see no down side to Meridian coming up with the technology, and charging for it. A better sound in a smaller bit Bucket. Not as good as original music Mastered beyond that Rez, I assume. It seems they are taking a Q from their Patent Counsel, and are not divulging any of their Propriatorey techniques concealed in their MQA technology. I have not seen a unbiased review that says sounds Worse. Three months in and I am happy with the upgrade.
 
Because of what the music made me feel at the time....

There are so many different styles of music and depending on my mood and what I'm going through will determine what music I listen to. Like, who listens to the same kind of music irregardless of how they feel??? Music is like a two sided coin for all purposes, you have a slow and fast side of the coin. You have a headache, you put on slow music and the headache goes away. You feel energized and happy.....you bang a gong with the fast music. My brother only plays music when he was happy cause he only listens to heavy metal, of course he's from the tail end of the BB gen so it's understandable.
 
There is a multitude of options toward improving the average music listener's experience. Coming from the Bottom up, streaming 16/44 in ACC, Flac, Lossy format. Most people out there only use their present device, phone, computer to stream Bluetooth. Jumping up the chain to a DAC that is 24/96, I think most manufactures of receivers, integrated amps, will provide larger bandwidth compatibility. It is like buying a 4K Led TV or Oled TV with no content???
MQA is a rung on the ladder, at least we have some content at 24/96. 400 albums +, Now. It is not coming fast enough for my liking but seems like it will be. That is why Tidal did not release/incorporate it sooner, there was limited Content. Lets see if Spotify, Deezer, Sonos, Pandora follow suit. All in the name of better listening and more options, at a competitive price.
 
doctorrazz said:
Yes read those reviews, MQA files from my experience sound slightly better than the standard CD streaming version, sampled at reputable shop and upgraded to the Bluesound Node from my Sonos Connect. For a extra $5 bucks a month, and a $100 upgrade, I am listening to streaming music again, and finding new favorites. Isn't that what music listening is all about.

I am not concerned about a watermark, it cost me $5 a month to upgrade to Tidal HiFi. and now i can listen to 24/196 files, and there is a increased soundstage. You guys that have huge HiRez libraries and great DAC's should not be threatened, I see no down side to Meridian coming up with the technology, and charging for it. A better sound in a smaller bit Bucket. Not as good as original music Mastered beyond that Rez, I assume. It seems they are taking a Q from their Patent Counsel, and are not divulging any of their Propriatorey techniques concealed in their MQA technology. I have not seen a unbiased review that says sounds Worse. Three months in and I am happy with the upgrade.
Click to expand...
On a similar note, there are MQA-encoded CDs now. Will those go the way of SACD and such?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom